Do You really want it?
There is also a second face of that: people are lazy. They wouldn't develop their own skills but rather they would off-load tasks to LLM-s, so their communicative abilities will be fade away.
That's looks like a strong dystopia for me.
How is this mutually exclusive with teaching better than most humans? Part of these "corporate" datasets include deep knowledge of the world's best literature and philosophy, for instance. Why can't it be both?
> Do You really want it?
If I'm in a hurry, don't know where to start, or don't have money for someone to teach me—sure.
> There is also a second face of that: people are lazy. They wouldn't develop their own skills but rather they would off-load tasks to LLM-s, so their communicative abilities will be fade away.
This is a recapitulation of the Luddite argument during the Industrial Revolution. And it's valid, but it has consequences for all technological change, not just this one. There was a world before Google, the Web, the Internet, personal computing, and computers. The same argument applies across the board, and the pre-AI / post-AI cutoff looks arbitrary.
Ah, so now we get to the "ed tech" question. What is teaching? Is there a human element to it, and if so, what is it? Or is it something completely inhuman? Or do we need to clarify what meaning of "teaching" we're talking about before we have a discussion?
This wouldn’t be a plausible position.
That said, I think it depends how you use it. You can learn from explanations, and you'd better avoid "rewrite this for me and do nothing else" kind of approach.